The UFO experiences of George Filer

[Saru]

The UFO experiences of George Filer

Click here to watch video - 03:23s

Major George Filer details his many intriguing encounters with UFOs.

[AZDZ]

Fascinating. I find his testimony to be very believable, but am curious to know if my faith in him is unfounded.

In other words, sceptics, what, if any, dirt do you have on him?

(btw, the actual time of the video is 1:03:23)

[ChrLzs]

The problem with all(most?) of these testimony-based claims is that:

- there is no hard evidence

- back in them days, there truly was an alien hysteria - most people believed in them and the media loved it

- they were used as a scare tactic and to hide other activities and also get extra funding for warmongering

- there was little stigma attached to a UFO sighting back then, esp if you were in the military. Indeed, it was often used as an excuse for peace time use of weapons and unauthorised or accidental maneuvers, even crashes (wuzn't me - it was alienz!)

So I'm afraid I am very sick of hearing the plaintive and whiny cry "But s/he had no reason to lie!!" Rubbish. and most of it is not 'lying' anyway, just misperceptions, second hand stories that their minds have 'adopted', and genuinely believed - but greatly exaggerated - memories.

AZDZ, is there any particular aspect of his stories that is especially compelling or backed by hard evidence.. AND that points at an alien-only solution?

[AZDZ]

The problem with all(most?) of these testimony-based claims is that:

- there is no hard evidence

Yeah, granted, pretty much the first half of the hour is spent recounting things told him. However, for ME, his credentials are worth a few points towards legitimizing his second hand accounts. His personal accounts are just as wild sounding as the second hand are. Like his account of being "denied access to the "UFO Vault"" and that our satellites pick up around 50 UFO entering/exiting our atmosphere a month, (starting around :25 minutes in.)

- back in them days, there truly was an alien hysteria - most people believed in them and the media loved it

- they were used as a scare tactic and to hide other activities and also get extra funding for warmongering

- there was little stigma attached to a UFO sighting back then, esp if you were in the military. Indeed, it was often used as an excuse for peace time use of weapons and unauthorised or accidental maneuvers, even crashes (wuzn't me - it was alienz!)

Huh, what are you talking about? None of that is the topic here. The topic is the video entitled; "The UFO Experiences of George Flier" Is the above your off hand way of calling him a liar?

So I'm afraid I am very sick of hearing the plaintive and whiny cry "But s/he had no reason to lie!!" Rubbish. and most of it is not 'lying' anyway, just misperceptions, second hand stories that their minds have 'adopted', and genuinely believed - but greatly exaggerated - memories.

Again, what? Nobody has said that here. Are you posting tired, Charles?

AZDZ, is there any particular aspect of his stories that is especially compelling or backed by hard evidence.. AND that points at an alien-only solution?

Probably Nothing this group would accept as "hard evidence". He showed a few photos of UFOs I have never seen before, but it was his testimony I found of interest. His claim is that there are some UFOs belonging to 'them' and some belonging to the 'US' via reverse engineering. Yes we've heard that before but this isn't Bob Lazar.

[ChrLzs]

No, not tired, simply pointing out the obvious.

While credibility counts for a bit, even very credible people lie, miss-remember, exaggerate and get stuiff wrong.. or can get so desperate to make a buck they will simply do what it takes.

If you are going to consider accepting testimony, then I believe it would be very wise to consider all aspects of doing so, and all of the reasons why stories may not be as they seem, including motivations that may have applied at the time. Why would you not do that?

And why is it so bad to want 'hard evidence'? That's the whole principle of science - it explains *actual observations*, real evidence, etc. Yes, scientists sometime hypothesise without evidence or observation, but then they must come up with ways to test it ARE observable, measurable and repeatable. Without that, the hypothesis is useless.